"We are hopeful that a resolution to this matter can be found," Benner said.

In an effort to resolve the ongoing conflict between county auditors and the sheriff's office, Perry County commissioners Brenda Benner and Paul Rudy Jr. have urged auditors to evaluate the sheriff's records of concealed carry permits with names omitted.

The disagreement emanated from the auditors' request to audit concealed firearms records. The sheriff refused to share the records, insisting that the carriers' names are confidential and, by law, are not open to the public.

However, auditors insist they have the obligation and authority to review the complete records as watchdogs for taxpayers. Permit sales generate revenue.

In April, the sheriff, accompanied by Benner and Rudy, presented auditors the records with names omitted. Auditors refused the records.

"We are hopeful that a resolution to this matter can be found," Benner said.

In a letter, addressed to the auditors and attributed to Benner and Rudy, the commissioners said they will not deny auditors funds to pay attorney fees as they seek to have the records opened to them. But they encouraged the auditors to do their work without the names to save the expense of a legal challenge.

"Based upon our, the Commissioners', understanding of the respective legal positions of the parties, it is anticipated that a resolution of this matter will require a final opinion from an appellate court," the letter reads.

"That will be an expensive proposition as it is possible the matter could be appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court or even the United States Supreme Court. Any such appeal will take years and place a huge financial burden on the taxpayers of Perry County."

In addition to $1,400, which already has been spent to pay solicitor fees for the auditors, the county also would be required to pay the sheriff's legal fees. "County taxpayers will be funding both sides of this one," Benner said.

Though the commissioners recognize a need for auditors to evaluate the sheriff's office, Rudy said he believes it can be done without the carriers' names being revealed.

"(The auditors) said they are uninterested in names," he said, "so I'm kind of at a loss to where the names come in."

According to the letter, the auditors have been requested to audit the name-redacted records, and, if discrepancies are found, the commissioners will try to facilitate a solution.

"If a financial discrepancy would be found, we would then request that an attempt be made to address the financial discrepancy without disclosing the names of the permittees.

"If that would not be possible, we will request that the parties then meet to attempt to see if a solution could be found other than to require the disclosure of the names of the permittees. If not, we will then act on the request of the auditors for additional legal fees."

Originally, a $2,000 limit was set to fund the auditors' solicitor. "No decision is being made at this time to deny the auditors additional funding beyond the $2,000 agreed to date," the letter reads.

"Should the names become relevant to completing the financial audit, we will agree to meet with the auditors and give your request for further funding of legal fees additional consideration."

County auditor Kimberly McMullen said the auditors forwarded the letter to their attorney, but because they were out of the office the week of the letter's arrival, she was unsure what their response would be.